Commentary on life with a southern accent

Monday, May 05, 2014

And it was worth the wait! In "I Will Miss Jack Bauer" I wrote about the series when it ended four years ago. I think it still holds up today. 24 isn't as groundbreaking as it was in 2001 when it began. Back then you didn't have many, if any, television series killing off main characters, or letting their hero engage in acts some viewers would surely find reprehensible (torture). But it is still enjoyable and unique in its fast minute by minute pacing.

I realized one thing tonight that I don't know how I missed until now -- Showtime's excellent Homeland series owes a lot to 24. I'd go so far as to say there would never have been a Homeland without 24.

Monday, October 22, 2012

There are dozens of important issues to be covered in tonight's presidential debate on foreign policy. In addition to questions about Iran and Afghanistan and China, we will almost certainly hear more about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi. Here are a few points I hope are made about the president's handling of the attack:

1. The President was obviously determined to blame the attack in Benghazi on a spontaneous demonstration against a video. The most likely reason is that to admit it was a terrorist attack would disrupt the narrative that bin Laden is dead and the terrorists are "on the run" or "on their heels." It is very telling that the president recently removed those phrases from his stump speech.

2. In addition to how wrong it was to intentionally mislead the public about the nature of the attack, there is a big problem with all the apologies, even if the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to a video. The President of the United States apologized to the world -- in a speech to the UN -- for a video created by a private citizen. By apologizing over and over again for a video the government had no role in, he is, in effect, apologizing for the freedom our country provides all its citizens to the free speech that allowed such a video to me made.

3. One thing most in the media have not covered is that the President of the United States reported the video to YouTube and that the creator of the video was picked up by law enforcement in the middle of the night. I'd like to know what other videos the White House has reported to YouTube. What kind of message does that send to the world?

4. I hope we see the President asked about his "bump in the road" and "not optimal" references to the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack.

For me, the President's handling of the Benghazi attack comes down to lies and apologies -- neither of which should be the basis for America's foreign policy. This is just one small issue in the big foreign policy scheme of things, but in many ways it is a fitting example.

Update (October 23): On the CBS News tonight they did a segment on the Benghazi emails that
were just released. The emails they showed made it very clear that the
White House Situation Room and several others in the administration
received emails in real time alerting them of the situation on the
ground in Benghazi as it unfolded and in the first couple hours they had a very good idea about what was happening.

They also showed a clip from 60 Minutes that was from an interview
shortly after the attack in which Obama said it did look like it was
probably more than a mob action, different than the situation in Egypt,
and that it looked likely that Americans were targeted from the start. You can see the text of the CBS report and video
of the 60 Minutes clip here. They didn't say much about all
the apologizing he did for weeks over the video, though.

Friday, May 25, 2012

I have read quite a few stories about Brett Kimberlin over the past couple days, and still don't quite understand why he is not in prison. The stories of the bombings he is responsible for a generation ago are horrific, but the accounts of the brand of political terrorism he is engaging in today are just as chilling.

I won't retell the stories here that Patterico, Liberty Chick, Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain and others have already told in vivid detail about the harassment they have received and are continuing to receive at the hands of Brett Kimberlin and some of his friends. You should read their first hand accounts. (I'd never before heard anything about the type of harassment/terrorism called "swatting" until I read Patterico's post). As you will find, the abuse they have received has been going on for some time. Andrew Breitbart warned about Kimberlin.

Lee Stranahan proposed that today be "Everybody Blog about Brett Kimberlin" Day and Michelle Malkin has done an amazing job rallying the blogosphere in a "free speech blogburst" to call attention to the activity of Kimberlin and others and to help raise money to help those who have been targeted by Kimberlin & Co. Michelle has the mother of all blog roundups here, along with lots of background information and updates. Here is some background reading and some ways you can help from her post:

Ali Akbar of the National Bloggers Club has stepped up to the plate and set up a donation page to help support the bloggers targeted by Kimberlin. Please help here if you can. If you prefer PayPal, click here.

As is often the case, the right blogosphere has managed to make (to borrow a phrase from a Sara Evans song that I'll bet no one else knows but me) "something magic out of something frightening." The situation remains frightening, but the power we can muster when we all stand together, as one, against something that can only be described as evil is magical. If you don't blog, you can take a stand as well by posting the links above (and from Michelle's site) on your Facebook page, tweeting and retweeting them and contributing money. When I last checked, Michelle had over 100 blog posts listed in her roundup. I don't know if the mainstream media has picked this story up yet, but if they haven't they've certainly had to go out of their way to ignore it.

Please keep the bloggers Kimberlin & Co. are terrorizing in your prayers and do what you can to help spread the word.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Earlier Kim Priestap wrote
about Dick Cheney's request that additional memos be declassified so
that the American people could see the rest of the story, regarding the
intelligence obtained through enhanced techniques used by the CIA. It
might not even be necessary to view additional memos to show that, if
the media would report the full contents of the memos that have already
been made public. I had not seen the following anywhere in the media
until reading it in the The Washington Post today (thanks to a link from Lucianne.com):

In
releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program
last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to
question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently
false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that
have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that
"the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations
has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular
attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the
CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical
information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed]
and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo
continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted
giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting,
'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied,
"interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well
as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda
and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the
discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian
operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los
Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at
Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest
building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information
obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin,
better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a
17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second
Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could
be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

Here is more from the same piece by Marc Thiessen:

Critics
claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because
people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos
note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced
techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted
by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the
limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and
physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their
faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they
are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief
that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is
inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the
terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak
freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama
administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists
threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and
other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist
questioning and withhold information on planned attacks.

Friday, February 06, 2009

President
Obama has a meeting scheduled tomorrow with families of those killed in
the terrorist attack on the Cole and the families of 9/11 victims most
likely to discuss with them dropping charges on one of the Cole bombers.

...it is noteworthy that, before the appointing authority acted this
evening, Obama had scheduled a meeting for tomorrow afternoon with
victims and families of victims not only of the Cole bombing but of of
the 9/11 attacks. At a minimum, he appeared poised to announce he was
dropping the Cole charges against Nashiri. All evening, however, it has
been floated from several knowledgeable sources that the president was
prepared to announce the dismissal of all the commission cases -- i.e.,
not only against Nashiri but against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the
other 9/11 plotters. That suggestion is supported by the fact that the
9/11 families were invited to the White House meeting: there would have
been no need to invite them to discuss an announcement that impacted
only the Cole case.

Dismissals, if they happened, would surely be couched as "without
prejudice." That is, Obama would be able to tell the families --
whether he meant it or not -- that he could always re-file military
commission charges if he ultimately decided that commissions, rather
than civilian trials, were the best way to go.

President
Obama is going to talk to the families of 9/11 victims and those killed
on the U.S.S.Cole. From what we have seen of the president these past
few weeks, his talking to them will be very nice, and their concerns
will have no affect on his position, whatsoever. Rather like "inviting"
the opposition in for a talk and telling them, "I won."

According
to the Post, among those who will be in attendance are family members
opposed to the decision. Also quoted in the story is Retired Navy Cmdr.
Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer on board the USS Cole when it
was attacked in Yemen in October of 2000. He's been a vocal critic of
Obama's order closing the facility, accusing the president of failing
to take into account the effect his decision would have on the families
of al Qaeda's victims. The Post quotes one unnamed activist
dramatically warning that the event may produce "fireworks."

Saturday, January 31, 2009

My good friend Steve Schippert's book is now available. I have not read it yet, but know it has to be great considering who the contributors are. Here is a link you can use to order a copy of Threats in the Age of Obama.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

In my most recent column at Townhall, I help those confused about who the real terrorists are by giving them a few hints.

Remarkably
there appear to be a growing number of people having trouble
identifying who the "real terrorists" are. Here is a hint to help them.
The real terrorists are the ones intentionally targeting innocent women
and children, beheading as many Americans (and Jews) as they can get
their hands on, and strapping bombs to their own small kids' bodies
sending them out to blow themselves up for the cause.
...
In the months, and even for a few years, following September 11, the
horror of the attacks was still fresh and the importance of strongly
addressing the threat of Islamic jihadism was understood. Today a
growing number of Americans entertain wild theories that it was not 19
jihadists that brought down the Twin Towers, but rather was forces
within our own government. Almost six years later, with no additional
attacks on U.S. soil, many have grown weary of the fight. Some now even
refuse to recognize the threat. In 2003, Michael Moore famously
denounced George Bush's "fictitious war." Four years later, John
Edwards, a major candidate in the Democrat's presidential primary, said
there was no war on terrorism - that it was just a "bumper sticker
slogan."

Those in the government who have to review the daily threat
assessments know that there is nothing fictitious, or "bumper sticker,"
about the terrorist threat. Those in Iraq discovering torture manuals
in al Qaeda safe houses, or finding the mutilated bodies of their
fellow soldiers tied to bombs, know that the terrorist threat is real.
Hopefully it won't take another September 11 style attack on U.S. soil
to remind those who have forgotten who the real terrorists are.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Lawhawk was reminded by a commenter and reminded me (via Michelle Malkin)
what anniversary is marked today. Anyone remember? I didn't. Follow the
links (see the update) and let me know if you were as shocked as I was
to realize it had already been fourteen years. It is not surprising
that this anniversary did not receive more attention considering how
many have already forgotten September 11.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Do the terrorists sound like the Democrats or do the Democrats sound like the terrorists? I personally think the terrorists are stealing the Democrats' playbook. A while back when an al Quaeda spokesman (or was it Osama himself?) referenced "My Pet Goat," I knew they were stealing from the Dems. Don't agree? Check it out for yourself at Gateway Pundit.

My Townhall column today is a response to Hillary Clinton's comments earlier this week that her husband's administration would have done more than the current one if they had seen a classified document saying bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.

...her hubby didn't need a classified report to tell him that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the U.S. He already knew it because we had already been attacked by al Qaeda on U.S. soil -- at the World Trade Center in 1993. Bob Owens responded similarly to Hillary Clinton's statement, but with specifics I'd never heard. Owens described the 1993 World Trade Center attack as the "first-and-to-date only WMD attack in America by al Qaeda and Iraq-affiliated terrorists."

In the column I quote extensively from Bob Owens' excellent post at Confederate Yankee. Read his entire post if you have not already. He makes some excellent points about the 1993 bombing and the Clinton reaction (or non-reaction) to it, including the fact that the WTC 1993 bombmaker was an Iraqi and that the bomb included a chemical component.

Owens states the fact that Hillary Clinton's husband hoped to disguise with bluster: "Bill Clinton was President of the United States when lower Manhattan was the victim of an al Qaeda plot executed by an Iraqi bomb-builder who detonated a chemical/conventional weapon under tens of thousands of Americans. President Clinton later knew what the bomb was composed of, knew how it was intended to be used, and what threat al Qaeda posed...Bill Clinton was President for another 7 years, 10 months, 25 days after this attack."